BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.464 of 2014
Date of institution: 11.07.2014
Date of Decision: 31.03.2015
M/s. Marvel Heights & Infratech Pvt. Ltd., SCF No.13, Phase-10 Mohali through its Director Simerjeet Singh.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Bhagat Cars Pvt. Ltd., C-19, Ind. Area, Phase-1, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab 160055.
2. M/s. Bhagat Cars Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office: 1 Jagdish Singh Marg, Patiala.
3. M/s. Nissan Motors Pvt. Ltd., ASV Ramana Towers, 37-38, Venkatnarayana Road, T- Nagar 600017.
4. Hover Automotive India Ltd., Granade Palladium, 5th Floor, B-Wing, 175, CST Road, Kalina (Santa Cruze), East Mumbai 400098.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri A.B. Aggarwal, Member.
Present: Shri B.S. Jassal, counsel for the complainant.
OP Nos.1,2 and 4 ex-parte.
Shri P.S. Bhangu, counsel for OP No.3.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The present complaint is being filed by Simerjeet Singh who is duly authorized Director of the complainant company. The case of the complainant is that it purchased from Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) No.1 Sunny XL Diesel Car Nissan for Rs.8,06,866/- vide bill dated 27.02.2012 Ex.C-2. The car was registered with Registration Authority, Mohali vide Registration No.PB-65-Q -5359. Immediately after its purchase, the car started giving troubles of unusual sound and foul small after 4-5 hours of running. The complainant brought these to the notice of OP No.1 who tried to rectify the same but the unusual sound still existed. Thereafter the mechanics of OP No.1 again tried to remove the problem but unusual sound and foul smell could not rectified. The complainant visited OP No.1 numerous times for rectification of the defects but could not be rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant even sent E-mails to the OP No.1 in this regard. On 27.05.2013 the complainant came to know from the newspapers that the OPs have called back 20100 units of defective cards to rectify the braking system which shows that there was a manufacturing defect in the braking system of the vehicle. The complainant sent his voice clipping to the OP on 07.01.2014. Suddenly the battery of the car started giving trouble during warranty period. The OPs promised to replace the same at 50% discount of the quotation of Rs.9,844/- of their authorized dealer M/s. Gautam Automobiles Shop No.191, Motor Market, Sector 48, Chandigarh. The complainant got replaced the battery by paying Rs.4800/- vide bill dated 08.05.2013. There is inherent manufacturing defect in the car as it was emitting black smoke from the date of its purchase which problem till date has not been removed. The complainant also issued a legal notice dated 15.02.2014 to the OPs which was received back undelivered.
With these allegations, the complainant has sought directions to the OPs replace the car with a new car or to refund its price alongwith interest; to pay him Rs.2.00 lacs on account of physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.
2. OP No.3 in its written separate has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint is barred by limitation as the complainant made the complaint on 30.04.2012 and the complaint has been filed on 11.07.2012. The complainant has not filed any opinion of Automative Expert that the vehicle has any manufacturing defect in it. The car was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose and, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer. Its relationship of with OP No.1 is of principal to principal basis. On merits, it is pleaded that the vehicle does not have any manufacturing defect. The allegations leveled by the complainant are only concocted story and he wants to make a wrongful gain for himself at the cost of OP No.3 by filing such a groundless and frivolous complaint. The OP No.3 has recalled the vehicle produced between June, 2012 and March, 2013 but the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 27.02.2012. Thus, denying any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, OP No.3 has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.
3. Summons sent to OP Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were not received back served or unserved. Presuming their due service and none having appeared for them, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.11.2014 and 07.11.2014 respectively.
4. Evidence of the complainant consists of affidavit Ex.CW1/1 of Simerjit Singh its Director and copies of documents Ex C-1 and C-19.
5. Evidence of OP No.3 consists of affidavit of Reshma Ravindran, its authorized representative Ex.OP-3/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-3/3 to OP-3/4.
6. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as Consoritum Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Anjana Tyagi, 2013(3) CLT 570 by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) & another, 2008 (I) CLT 566, OP Nos.1, 2 and 4 were given three opportunities to rebut the evidence of the complainant. However, none appeared for them to rebut the evidence of the complainant.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.3 and gone through the written arguments filed by them.
8. The purchase of the vehicle in question on 27.02.2012 is not disputed by the OPs. The OPs have admitted having received the vehicle for rectification of defects in the car on various occasions i.e. 01.03.2013, 08.03.2013, 09.03.2013 and lastly on 07.01.2014 wherein the voice clip of weird sound was rectified as the vehicle is under warranty. So much so the OPs have admitted having exchanged the battery as per terms of warranty pertaining to battery as is evident from Ex.C-13 dated 08.05.2013. The grievance of the complainant that the vehicle in question needs to be recalled to rectify the faulty breaking system occurred in the car, as per the policy of the OP No.3 the manufacturer as per Ex.C-9 the policy and non calling the car of the complainant is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
9. We have gone through the contents of Ex.C-9 i.e. the policy of the company to recall the cars to rectify the faulty breaking system for small car Micra and Sedan Sunny in India due to faulty breaking system in the vehicle but the policy is applicable to the cars sold/manufactured between June 2012 to March, 2013 and the said concession is not applicable to the complainant as the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 27.02.2012. Thus, on this account we do not find any merit in the grievance of the complainant.
10. As stated above the battery in question has already been replaced by OP Nos.1 and 2 vide Ex.C-13 and, therefore, we do not find anything amiss on their part in this regard.
11. The complainant has failed to show any other defect or lack of after sale service on the part of the OPs as no evidence has come on record like job cards etc. from either side of the parties. Therefore, bald assertion of the complainant without any evidence is of no help to him.
12. Hence, the complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of orders be sent to the parties free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
March 31, 2015
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(A.B. Aggarwal)
Member
